DOCSLIB.ORG

Minutes Document for Corporate Committee, 17/09/2020 18:00

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Minutes Document for Corporate Committee, 17/09/2020 18:00 CORPORATE COMMITTEE MINUTES Thursday 17 September 2020 at 6.00 pm PRESENT: Councillor Scott Ainslie, Councillor Linda Bray (Substitute), Councillor Peter Ely, Councillor Adrian Garden (Chair) and Councillor Iain Simpson 1. DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS There were none. 2. MINUTES This item was deferred to the next meeting of the Committee. 3. WORK PROGRAMME AND ACTION MONITORING This item was deferred to the next meeting of the Committee. 4. LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CONSULTATION RESPONSE Councillor Jim Dickson, Cabinet Member for Health and Social Care (job-share) and Chair of the Member Working Party, noting he had been the responsible Cabinet Member at the start of this project and had continued in this position subsequent to portfolio changes, introduced the report as follows: Boundary reviews were undertaken every 20 years, in addition Lambeth’s Bishop’s ward had a -30% electoral variance than the borough average, Thornton (-12% less than average) and Thornton and Coldharbour (both more than 10% of the average) qualified it for earlier review. The response was compiled by, and thanks were given to, the members of the cross-party working group and officers who inputted into the submission. Lambeth’s projected 2026 electorate showed a large increase in the north of the borough meaning that a new ward (Vauxhall Riverside) was proposed and three wards (Waterloo (currently Bishop’s), Knight’s Hill and St Leonard’s would reduce from three to two ward councillors. Local Government Boundary Commission criteria had been applied to the proposal with electoral variance within 5% of the average (4,072 electors per councillor) and the proposed wards took into account distinct communities, whilst maintaining efficient and convenient local government. Some wards had been renamed to better reflect locations instead of historic persons. The submission presented to the Committee was the Council’s, and other political groups and community groups could make their own submissions. The Boundary Commission treated all submissions equally and would recommend the best one following a second round of consultation due to begin on 05 January 2021. Councillor Jim Dickson, Cabinet Member for Health and Social Care (job-share); and, Alison McKane, Director of Legal and Governance, answered questions as below: The report, although approved at the cross-party working group, did not have full cross- party support, but had been well received. Other parties and groups were entitled to put forward their own submissions and all would receive equal weight by the Boundary Commission. The attached submission was recommended for approval as the Council’s submission. The Commission held a major stakeholder consultation launch in early July 2020 and asked the community what they wanted it to look like in the future. Stakeholders were encouraged to make submissions and the Council was just one consultee. It was believed that other stakeholders had sufficient time to prepare their responses. It was noted that the Green Party had largely agreed to the submission at the last working group, except changes to Streatham, which was expected to be reflected in their submission. Lambeth was not allowed to take into account expected changes arising from Brexit, Covid-19, house prices, nor economic downturns and their effects on the population. Statistics of populations projections based on new housing and residential development and how that affected the electorate’s size were instead used. It was not possible to amend the report once it had been published, but the points raised by Councillor Scott Ainslie would be recorded as follows: o The cross-party working group failed to agree on the fundamental theme of establishing communities, particularly of Streatham, as a sense of place. o Paragraph 1.10 should clarify that the submission did not have cross-party agreement. o Paragraphs 2.5 and 5.1 should note that the proposed scheme was recommended by Labour councillors within the Member Working Party and not by the entire Member working Party. o Paragraph 5.1 also failed to note that talks had failed and that there was insufficient time to consult with wider stakeholders due to the submission deadline on 21 September 2020. RESOLVED by 4 votes for to 1 abstaining: 1. To approve the submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) by the deadline of 21 September 2020 (Appendix A) for a proposed rewarding scheme. 2. To delegate authority to the Director, Legal and Governance in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Health and Social Care (job-share) to agree any minor amendments to the proposed scheme arising from any comments. 5. AUDIT COMMITTEE EFFECTIVENESS Justin Martin, Chief Audit Executive and Charlotte Bilsland, Deputy Chief Audit Executive, presented the report and answered questions as follows: The independent review of the effectiveness of external audit and transparency of financial reporting in local authorities by Sir Tony Redmond highlighted that: o There were national concerns whether external auditors’ market price fees were correct and an audit commission on governance oversight and other matters was expected; and, o The report recommended having an independent audit committee member. Lambeth’s Corporate Committee was ahead of some other local authorities on training committee members, but it was recommended to increase training opportunities further. The outcomes following the November 2019 assessment had been delayed due to Covid- 19, but training was soon to be scheduled. A further self-assessment would be run after this training and this would help inform a decision to select an independent member. It was good practice to have a feedback mechanism to review performance. It was good practice to keep an action log, but it was concerning that many items were overdue and Members were encouraged to call responsible officers to the Committee when this occurred. Independent members could potentially be retired auditors and PwC had an alumni network to source candidates. It was expected that a small token renumeration would be necessary. In discussion, Members noted that: It was disappointing that the original effectiveness questionnaire had taken Members so long to complete and this wider work had been ongoing for two years. The Redmond Review also noted that local authority accounts were unnecessarily over- complicated, and that greater transparency and accessibility was required. Multiple specialist independent members covering a broad range of technical knowledge areas, who attended specific meetings would likely result in not being able to build relationships and might be poor use of the Committee’s time. Inviting external consultants for specific issues should also be explored. Questions were raised about who could fill a generalist independent member role and from what area of public sphere they could be sourced from. It was suspected that most local experts who would want to attend audit meetings would be former councillors, and sourcing persons with the requisite knowledge and experience from the private sector might be difficult. It was queried whether the Redmond Report had a steer on independent members. An independent member who was resident in the borough was felt to be better, but importantly they needed to be non-political. The Chair noted that the sourcing of an independent member would be dealt with after training had concluded. RESOLVED: 1. To consider the results of the Corporate Committee’s self-assessment of knowledge and skills. 2. To consider the 3 recommendations under paragraph 2.4 Areas Noted and agree actions. 6. AUDIT AND INVESTIGATIONS UPDATE Justin Martin, Chief Audit Executive; Charlotte Bilsland, Deputy Chief Audit Executive; and, Yousra Abdelmoneim, PwC Internal Audit Supervisor, presented the report and answered questions as follows: There was a 70% implementation rate in 2019/20, which was a significant improvement on previous years and 2020/21’s target was 80%, which currently stood at 55%. Internal Audit had encouraged transparency of date changes and was implementing a follow-up system to improve action ownership. Volatility on completed action percentages from previous years was to be expected in- year, but it was noted that the important figure was the year-end completion rates. Members noted that actions needed to continue to be identified and the log to be maintained but expressed disappointment that some deadlines had been missed by officers and management comments did not always provide sufficient reasons for delays. However, the Committee welcomed the improvements detailed in the report. RESOLVED: 1. To receive and consider the report which provides an update on matters relating to the Internal Audit and Counter Fraud service, its activities and outcomes. 7. CORPORATE AND STRATEGIC RISK James Rimmington, Risk Manager, introduced the report and answered questions as follows: Risks continued to be identified and assessed, with 31 corporate and 44 strategic risks, and showed the borough to be risk aware. 28 risks were currently outside risk appetite although this did not represent failure but showed awareness of the risk environment. Not all risks were increasing due to Covid-19 and the Council had responded well to Covid-19 with no service failure. A separate Covid-19 Risk Register (Appendix B), with 40 risks over 11 themes, showed a moderate but dynamic risk profile, which could be subject to short-term change. The Brexit Risk Register and management of those 50 risks was still in process and a summary of key Brexit risks would be in the next report. Officers would confirm whether failure to adhere to the Homes for Lambeth (HfL) key guarantees could result in further risks to Lambeth’s reputation or legal action for HfL; and that HfL were content that the identified risks sufficiently covered a failure to deliver estate regeneration. There was a HfL Challenge Session later in the year, pending the HfL Governance Review anticipated in October 2020. There were internal and external carbon reduction strategic risks, but only the corporate risk was included in the report.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • (Public Pack)Agenda Document for Planning Applications Committee
    PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE Date: Tuesday 25 May 2021 Time: 7.00 pm Venue: Committee Room (B6) - Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton, London, SW2 1RW* *In line with legislation and continuing Covid-19 precautions, Committee Members will attend the meeting in person at Lambeth Town Hall. Officers, visiting Ward Members and members of the public are invited to attend virtually. Further instructions about joining the meeting, are provided overleaf. Copies of agendas, reports, minutes and other attachments for the Council’s meetings are available on the Lambeth website. www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov Members of the Committee Councillor Scarlett O'Hara (Vice-Chair), Councillor Malcolm Clark, Councillor Jessica Leigh, Councillor Mohammed Seedat, Councillor Iain Simpson, Councillor Joanne Simpson (Chair) and Councillor Becca Thackray Substitute Members Councillor Liz Atkins, Councillor Jennifer Brathwaite, Councillor Marcia Cameron, Councillor Rezina Chowdhury, Councillor Paul Gadsby, Councillor Nigel Haselden, Councillor Maria Kay, Councillor Marianna Masters, Councillor Timothy Windle and Councillor Sonia Winifred Further Information If you require any further information or have any queries please contact: Farah Hussain, Telephone: 020 7926 4201; Email: [email protected] Published on: Thursday 13 May 2021 Queries on reports Please contact report authors prior to the meeting if you have questions on the reports or wish to inspect the background documents used. The contact details of the report author are shown on the front page of each report. @LBLdemocracy on Twitter http://twitter.com/LBLdemocracy or use #Lambeth How to access the meeting In line with legislation, Committee members will attend the meeting in person at Lambeth Town Hall. Due to public health guidance covering health, hygiene and social distancing, officers, visiting Ward Members and members of the public are invited to attend virtually.
    [Show full text]
  • First Agenda Autumn Conference 2020
    First Agenda Autumn Conference 2020 1 Table of Contents Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... 2 Section A .................................................................................................................................... 5 A1 Amendments to Standing Orders for the Conduct of Conference to enable an online and telephone Extraordinary Conference to be held in Autumn 2020 ................................. 5 A2 Enabling Motion for an Extraordinary Autumn Conference 2020 to be held online ....... 7 Section B .................................................................................................................................... 8 B1 Food and Agriculture Voting Paper .................................................................................. 8 Section C................................................................................................................................... 15 C1 Adopt the Principle of Rationing to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Arising from Travel, Amending the Climate Emergency and the Transport Chapters of PSS .................. 15 C2 The 2019 General Election Manifesto and Climate Change Mitigation ......................... 17 C3 Animal Rights: Fireworks; limit use and quiet ................................................................ 19 C4 Updating the philosophical basis to reflect doughnut economics ................................. 20 C5 Car and vans to go zero carbon by
    [Show full text]
  • FINAL AGENDA AUTUMN ONLINE CONFERENCE 2-11 October 2020
    FINAL AGENDA AUTUMN ONLINE CONFERENCE 2-11 October 2020 9 1 CONTENTS Table of Contents 2 Section A (Enabling Motions) 10 Enabling Motions A01 Standing Orders Committee (SOC) Report 10 Enabling Motions A02 Amendments to Standing Orders for the Conduct of Conference 11 to enable an online and telephone Extraordinary Conference to be held in Autumn 2020 Enabling Motions A03 Enabling Motion for an Extraordinary Autumn Conference 2020 12 to be held online Section A – Main Agenda 14 A1 Standing Orders Committee Report 14 A2 Green Party Executive Report 37 A3 Treasurers Report 46 A4 Green Party Regional Council Report 47 A5 Dispute Resolution Committee Report 50 A6 Policy Development Committee Report 54 A7 Complaint Managers Report 57 A8 Campaigns Committee Report 58 A9 Conferences Committee Report 58 A10 Equality and Diversity Committee Report 58 A11 Green World Editorial Board Report 58 A12 Framework Development Group report 58 A13 Climate Emergency Policy Working Group Report 58 Section B 60 B1 Food and Agriculture Voting Paper 60 Amendment 2a 60 Amendment 1a 61 Amendment 2b 61 Amendment 1b 61 Amendment 1c 62 Amendment 1d 62 Amendment 2c 64 2 3 Section C 65 C1 Deforestation (Fast Tracked) 65 C2 Car and vans to go zero carbon by 2030 65 C3 Ban on advertising of high-carbon goods and services 65 C4 The 2019 General Election Manifesto and Climate Change Mitigation 66 Amendment 1 67 Amendment 2 67 C5 Adopt the Principle of Rationing to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Arising from Travel, 67 Amending the Climate Emergency and the Transport Chapters of PSS C6 Updating the philosophical basis to reflect doughnut economics 68 Amendment 1 69 C7 Self Declaration of Gender 69 C8 Animal Rights: Fireworks; limit use and quiet 70 C9 Access to Fertility Treatment 70 Section D 71 D1 Winning over workers is crucial to fighting climate change.
    [Show full text]
  • Masks Must Remain Mandatory to Keep Public Safe, Says Green Party
    Greens express profound disappointment over Labour Party failure to support fair voting system 27 September 2021 The Green Party has criticised the Labour leadership for failing to ensure the party backed a vote to support proportional representation at its conference today [Monday 27 September]. [1] Labour conference defeated the motion after it was sent to a card vote. This came after 150 Constituency Labour Parties submitted motions on the topic and more than 83% of members previously said they support the idea. [2] Zack Polanski, Green Party spokesperson on Democracy and Citizen Engagement, said: “This is a really disappointing decision by the Labour Party which shows a real lack of leadership and vision from the top of the party. “Labour members overwhelmingly support electoral reform, yet Keir Starmer has done next to nothing to ensure that his party’s delegates voted through a motion which could have revolutionised British politics and put an end to the Tory stranglehold on our failed democratic system. “In the conference hall, speaker after speaker argued passionately for Labour to adopt proportional representation in its next manifesto, yet it still did not pass. Without proportional representation and electoral cooperation Labour has an impossible mountain to climb and the country faces another five years of chaos with the Conservatives. “It is clear that British voters want to move on from the failure and division caused by the two-party system, and so it is extremely worrying to see Labour fail to grasp the need for a more cooperative and collaborative form of politics which will benefit everyone.
    [Show full text]
  • General Election Candidate Details
    General Election Candidate Details Barking Margaret Hodge, Lab, [email protected] @margarethodge (the sitting MP) Tamkeen Akhterrasul Shaikh, Con, [email protected] @tamkeenshaikh Ann Haigh, Lib Dem, [email protected] Shannon Butterfield, Green, [email protected] Karen Batley, Brexit Party, [email protected] @BatleyKaren Bermondsey and Old Southwark Neil Coyle, Labour, [email protected] @coyleneil Andrew Baker, Con, [email protected] @agsbaker235 Humaira Ali, Liberal Democrat, [email protected] @cllrhumaira Alex Matthews, Brexit Party, [email protected] @apmmatthews Bethnal Green & Bow Rushanara Ali, Lab, [email protected] @rushanaraali (the sitting MP) Nick Stovold, Con, [email protected] @nick_stovold Josh Babarinde, Lib Dem, [email protected] Shahrar Ali, Green, [email protected] @ShahrarAli David Axe, Brexit Party, [email protected] @DavidAxePPC Camberwell & Peckham Harriet Harman, Lab, [email protected] @HarrietHarman (the sitting MP) Peter Quentin, Con, [email protected] Julia Ogiehor, Lib Dem, [email protected] @juliaogiehor Claire Sheppard, Green, [email protected] @ShinyShep Chingford & Woodford Green Iain Duncan-Smith, Con, [email protected] (the sitting MP) Lab, Faiza Shaeen, [email protected] @faizashaheen Geoffrey Seef, Lib Dem, [email protected] @GSeeff Dagenham & Rainham Jon Cruddas, Lab, [email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court, Lawyer Letter
    Lord Reed President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom Parliament Square London SW1P 3BD [email protected] Cc Rt Hon Alok Sharma MP, President COP26 Rt Hon Michael Ellis QC MP, Attorney General Mr. Tim Crosland, Director, Plan B.Earth Re. Humanity’s Lifeline: the Paris Agreement Temperature Limit March 30, 2021 Dear Lord Reed: We write concerning the Supreme Court’s decision last December, which ruled that the Government’s policy in support of Heathrow expansion was lawful, despite the Government’s failure to take into account the Paris Agreement’s agreed temperature limits which constitute a key part of its architecture.1 There was uncontested evidence before the Court that: ● The expansion of Heathrow Airport would lead to around 40,000,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions from UK aviation by 20502; ● That in order to meet the Paris Temperature Limit (ie 1.5˚C and “well below” 2˚C), carbon dioxide emissions would need to be “net zero” before 20503; and that ● Breaching the Temperature Limits prescribed in the goals of the Paris Agreement would have dire implications for humanity, in particular for the younger generation and the Global South. The Government did not explain how the expansion of Heathrow Airport could be reconciled with the goals agreed in Paris by every country in the world. To the contrary, it argued that the Paris Agreement was “not relevant”4. Chris Grayling MP, the Transport Minister at the time, relied instead on the historic 2˚C temperature limit, rejected by governments (including the UK 1 See R (on the application of Friends of the Earth Ltd and others) (Respondents) v Heathrow Airport Ltd (Appellant) [2020] UKSC 52 2 See https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/878705 /uk-aviation-forecasts-2017.pdf, p.107, Table 36 3 See Court of Appeal judgement, para.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Elections of May 2019
    The European Elections of May 2019 Electoral systems and outcomes STUDY EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service Kai Friederike Oelbermann and Friedrich Pukelsheim PE 652.037 – July 2020 EN The European Elections of May 2019 Electoral systems and outcomes This EPRS study provides an overview of the electoral systems and outcomes in the May 2019 elections to the European Parliament. It analyses the procedural details of how parties and candidates register their participation, how votes are cast, how valid votes are converted into seats, and how seats are assigned to candidates. For each Member State the paper describes the ballot structure and vote pattern used, the apportionment of seats among the Member State’s domestic parties, and the assignment of the seats of a party to its candidates. It highlights aspects that are common to all Member States and captures peculiarities that are specific to some domestic provisions. EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service AUTHOR(S) This study has been written by Kai-Friederike Oelbermann (Anhalt University of Applied Sciences) and Friedrich Pukelsheim (University of Augsburg) at the request of the Members’ Research Service, within the Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services (EPRS) of the Secretariat of the European Parliament. The authors acknowledge the useful comments made by Wilhelm Lehmann (European Parliament/European University Institute) on drafts of this paper. PUBLISHER Members' Research Service, Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services (EPRS) To contact the publisher, please e-mail [email protected] LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN Manuscript finalised in June 2020. DISCLAIMER AND COPYRIGHT This document is prepared for, and addressed to, the Members and staff of the European Parliament as background material to assist them in their parliamentary work.
    [Show full text]
  • Streatham High Road Consultation Report 2018
    Proposed changes to parking and loadingProposed bays changes northbound to parking on Streatham and Highloading Road bays between northbound Becmead on StreathamAvenue andRoad Drewstead between BecmeadRoad Avenue Consultationand Drewstead Report Road FebruaryConsultation 2018 Report February 2018 1 Contents Executive summary ..................................................................................................... 3 1. About the proposals ............................................................................................ 5 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Detailed description ........................................................................................ 5 2. About the consultation ........................................................................................ 7 2.1 Purpose .......................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Potential outcomes ......................................................................................... 7 2.3 Who we consulted .......................................................................................... 7 2.4 Dates and duration ......................................................................................... 8 2.5 What we asked ............................................................................................... 8 2.6 Methods of responding ..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Printed Minutes PDF 279 KB
    COUNCIL Wednesday 18 October 2017 at 7.00 pm MINUTES The Worshipful the Mayor in the Chair COUNCILLORS PRESENT: Councillor Scott Ainslie, Councillor Adedamola Aminu, Councillor David Amos, Councillor Donatus Anyanwu, Councillor Liz Atkins, Councillor Mary Atkins, Councillor Matthew Bennett, Councillor Alex Bigham, Councillor Anna Birley, Councillor Jennifer Brathwaite, Councillor Linda Bray, Councillor Tim Briggs, Mayor Marcia Cameron, Councillor Rezina Chowdhury, Councillor Malcolm Clark, Councillor Fred Cowell, Councillor Kevin Craig, Councillor Edward Davie, Councillor Jim Dickson, Councillor Max Deckers Dowber, Councillor Jacqui Dyer, Councillor Paul Gadsby, Councillor Annie Gallop, Councillor Adrian Garden, Councillor Nigel Haselden, Councillor Rachel Heywood, Councillor Robert Hill, Councillor Jack Holborn, Councillor Claire Holland, Councillor Saleha Jaffer, Councillor John Kazantzis, Councillor Ben Kind, Councillor Paul McGlone, Councillor Jackie Meldrum, Councillor Diana Morris, Councillor Luke Murphy, Councillor Louise Nathanson, Councillor Matt Parr, Councillor Lib Peck, Councillor Sally Prentice, Deputy Mayor Guilherme Rosa, Councillor Neil Sabharwal, Councillor Mohammed Seedat, Councillor Iain Simpson, Councillor Martin Tiedemann, Councillor Amélie Treppass, Councillor Imogen Walker, Councillor Clair Wilcox, Councillor Andrew Wilson and Councillor Sonia Winifred APOLOGIES: Councillor Danial Adilypour, Councillor Michelle Agdomar, Councillor Marsha de Cordova, Councillor Jane Edbrooke, Councillor Florence Eshalomi, Councillor
    [Show full text]
  • Declaration of Result of Poll
    London Borough of Lambeth Election of 3 Ward Councillors Bishops Ward Declaration of Result of Poll Date of Election: 22 May 2014 I, Derrick Anderson, Returning Officer, hereby give notice that the number of votes for each Candidate at the election of 3 Councillors for Bishops Ward are as follows: Number of Votes. Candidate name Description of candidate If Elected the Word 'ELECTED' appears against the number of votes BRAITHWAITE Diana Elma Liberal Democrats 949 BRIGHTBART Sam The Green Party 304 CRAIG Kevin Labour Party Candidate 1061 ELECTED CROFT Clive Murray The Green Party 295 FROST David Alan Conservative Party Candidate 292 GORISSEN Bart The Green Party 272 HANNEY Matthew Thomas Liberal Democrats 777 HARRISON Edward Jon Conservative Party 291 HAYES Andrew Robert UK Independence Party (UKIP) 248 KIND Ben Labour Party Candidate 976 ELECTED MORRIS El Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition 63 MOSLEY Jennie Labour Party Candidate 1106 ELECTED ROTHERHAM Lee Stuart Conservative Party Candidate 284 TRUESDALE Peter Jonathan Liberal Democrats 939 The Number of rejected ballot papers was as follows: Number A - Want of an official mark 0 B - Voting for more than three candidates 0 C – Writing or mark by which voter could be identified 0 D – Unmarked or void for uncertainty 0 E – Rejected in part 0 Total 0 Electorate = 7,586 Total votes received = 2,800 Turnout = 36.91 % And I declare that 1. Jennie Mosley 2. Kevin Craig 3. Ben Kind are duly elected as Members for Bishops Ward. Derrick Anderson, Returning Officer. Printed and published by the Returning Officer, Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, London, SW2 1RW London Borough of Lambeth Election of 3 Ward Councillors Brixton Hill Ward Declaration of Result of Poll Date of Election: 22 May 2014 I, Derrick Anderson, Returning Officer, hereby give notice that the number of votes for each Candidate at the election of 3 Councillors for Brixton Hill Ward are as follows: Number of Votes.
    [Show full text]
  • 142-170 Streatham Hill and Wentworth House in the London Borough of Lambeth Planning Application No.14/06765/VOC
    planning report D&P/1663h/02 6 November 2015 142-170 Streatham Hill and Wentworth House in the London Borough of Lambeth planning application no.14/06765/VOC Strategic planning application stage II referral Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008. The proposal Variation of condition 2 of planning permission 14/03760/VOC (which granted the variation of condition 13 of planning permission 10/00507/FUL) to allow for minor material amendments to the permitted scheme, to provide 259 residential units and associated revisions to their layouts, tenure mix and dwelling mix; 1,253sqm retail accommodation (A1/A2/A3); relocation and reconfiguration of theatre (303sqm) and community facility (176sqm); 127 car parking spaces revisions to servicing arrangements; improved energy efficiency; and consequential minor revisions to the external design and massing. The applicant The applicant is London Square and the architect is CJCT. Strategic issues Outstanding issues in relation to mixed use, affordable housing, mix of unit sizes, retail, community infrastructure/theatre, amenity space and landscaping, design, inclusive access, energy and transport have been resolved satisfactorily. The Council’s decision In this instance Lambeth Council has resolved to grant permission. Recommendation That Lambeth Council be advised that the Mayor is content for it to determine the case itself, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take, and does not therefore wish to direct refusal or direct that he is to be the local planning authority. Context 1 On 13 March 2015 the Mayor of London received documents from Lambeth Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses.
    [Show full text]
  • Sadiq Khan, the Climate Emergency, and the £1Bn Silvertown Road Tunnel
    Sadiq Khan, the Climate Emergency, and the £1bn Silvertown Road Tunnel Silvertown Tunnel protestors with Matthew Pennycook MP for Greenwich and Woolwich at the School Climate Strike on Friday 20 September 2019 Sadiq Khan is silent about his biggest spending commitment as London Mayor, the Silvertown Tunnel. Mayor Khan is now promising a 'Green New Deal' for London - but his administration has just signed a contract to build a massive £1bn new road, that will lock in carbon emissions for decades to come. His decision to build the £1bn Silvertown Tunnel has been kept carefully under the radar – Sadiq never mentions it on social media, for example - and many Londoners still don’t know about it. If this 4-lane Thames road tunnel with dedicated HGV lanes, which effectively doubles the existing Blackwall Tunnel, were planned to run from Battersea to Westminster, things might be different. But it will (if it's ever built) run from Newham in East London to Greenwich. The extra traffic will worsen congestion on the narrow and congested approach roads to the north and south, which run past homes and schools in areas with mostly poorer populations, some of whom already breathe bad air. The decision to sign the contract for Silvertown after declaring a climate emergency, and just before promising a 'Green New Deal' fits into an uncomfortable pattern. Mayor Khan was active supporter of London City Airport expansion, that even the business-minded Mayor Johnson wouldn't permit, and has cancelled walking and cycling schemes such as the Rotherhithe Bridge and the Westway cycleway, claiming that they're unaffordable.
    [Show full text]